Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:17:06 -0500
From: Ted White <tedwhite at compusnet.com>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: What shpuld Capclave be?
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

Candy Madigan wrote:

> At 04:46 PM 03/10/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >Candy Madigan wrote:
> >
> > > At 05:50 PM 03/09/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> > >
> > > >Candy Madigan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > At 03:02 AM 03/09/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >lee gilliland wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why do you want to "swell the throng"?  More bodies don't
> > guarantee a
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > convention.   I think Capclave should find and exploit an underused
> > > > niche
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > not try to be All Cons For All People.   And it seems to me that
> > > > > > Capclave #1
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > already moved promisingly in that direction.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --Ted White
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe the saying is, "The more, the merrier."  Cons are for
> > people.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Well in that case, why not go Whole Hog and plan for 8,000 to 10,000?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because we're not attracting 8-10K?  (Sarcasm intended)
> > > >
> > > >Well, gosh.  I guess that trumped *my* sarcasm, huh?
> > >
> > > Oh, my mistake, I thought it was stupidity.
> >
> >This is how you make new friends?
>
> Not with you.

Clearly.

What's your problem?

--Ted White